Cejna M, Virmani R, Jones R, Bergmeister H, Losert U, Xu Z, Yang P, Schoder M, Lammer J
Department of Angiography, University of Vienna, Austria.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001 Mar;12(3):351-8. doi: 10.1016/s1051-0443(07)61916-2.
To compare the biocompatibility and performance of various stent-grafts to those of a bare stent in an ovine model with a subchronic (3 months) endpoint.
Three different types of stent-grafts (ePTFE/nitinol, n = 8; polyester/nitinol, n = 8; and polycarbonate urethane/cobalt-alloy, n = 8) and a bare stent as a control (Ni-Co-Ti-steel-alloy, n = 8) were implanted in the iliac arteries in eight female sheep. One type of each stent-graft was implanted per animal, two implants at each side. The implantation sites for each type varied from animal to animal. Angiographic control and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging were performed before and after implantation, after 2 months, and before explantation at 3 months and were used to characterize patency and to assess intimal hyperplasia. After 3 months, the implants were retrieved and subjected to histologic evaluation (after methacrylate embedding, cutting, and histologic staining) to characterize the biologic response.
Implantation was technically successful in all procedures. At 2 and 3 months after implantation, all segments in which stents had been implanted were patent. Marked neointima formation was found in the polyester-covered stent-graft that showed significant luminal narrowing of 50%, compared to the ePTFE-covered (24%) and polycarbonate urethane-covered endoprostheses (22%), as well as the bare stent (Wallstent; 9%; P < .001). A minimal inflammatory vessel wall reaction was demonstrated for the polyester-covered and ePTFE-covered endoprostheses; the polycarbonate urethane-covered stent-graft's response was demonstrable but not significantly different from that of the Wallstent. At 3 months, the ePTFE-covered stent-graft showed incomplete (>90%) endothelial coverage; in the other endoprostheses, complete but partially immature endothelialization was found.
All stent-grafts induced an inflammatory vessel wall reaction with neointimal hyperplasia. The polyester-covered endoprosthesis caused a marked reaction with 50% luminal stenosis. Endothelialization was retarded with the ePTFE-covered stent-graft. The bare stent performed best in regard to neointimal formation and caused the least inflammatory response.
在以亚慢性(3个月)为终点的绵羊模型中,比较各种覆膜支架与裸支架的生物相容性和性能。
将三种不同类型的覆膜支架(ePTFE/镍钛合金,n = 8;聚酯/镍钛合金,n = 8;聚碳酸酯聚氨酯/钴合金,n = 8)和一个作为对照的裸支架(镍钴钛合金钢合金,n = 8)植入8只雌性绵羊的髂动脉中。每只动物植入一种类型的覆膜支架,每侧植入两个。每种类型的植入部位因动物而异。在植入前、植入后2个月、3个月取出前进行血管造影对照和血管内超声(IVUS)成像,用于评估通畅情况和内膜增生。3个月后,取出植入物并进行组织学评估(甲基丙烯酸酯包埋、切片和组织学染色后),以表征生物反应。
所有手术在技术上均获成功。植入后2个月和3个月,所有植入支架的节段均保持通畅。在聚酯覆膜支架中发现明显的新生内膜形成,与ePTFE覆膜(24%)、聚碳酸酯聚氨酯覆膜人工血管(22%)以及裸支架(Wallstent;9%)相比,其管腔狭窄达50%,差异有统计学意义(P <.001)。聚酯覆膜和ePTFE覆膜人工血管表现出最小的炎症性血管壁反应;聚碳酸酯聚氨酯覆膜支架的反应明显,但与Wallstent相比无显著差异。3个月时,ePTFE覆膜支架内皮覆盖不完全(>90%);在其他人工血管中,发现内皮化完全但部分不成熟。
所有覆膜支架均引发了伴有新生内膜增生的炎症性血管壁反应。聚酯覆膜人工血管引发了明显反应,管腔狭窄达50%。ePTFE覆膜支架的内皮化延迟。裸支架在新生内膜形成方面表现最佳,炎症反应最小。